You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

A proper understanding of race will do much to dispel those wild accusations of "racism" and "hate" that juvenilely form the basis of our contemporary discourse on biological differences between the races (and, to be discussed at a later date, the sexes). The most troublesome of all racial differences—more than in-group preference and self-segregation, more than athletic prowess, more than a certain kind of endowment—is the space between the ears and the many complex processes it houses in the brain. Intelligence is chief among them.

The best and most reliable metric we have to date to test intelligence is the IQ test. The essence of IQ differences between the races rests on g, or general intelligence. Helmuth Nyborg and Arthur Jensen confirmed that the heavier the g-loading of a cognitive test, the more pronounced the racial differences in IQ, and this disparity "should no longer be regarded as just an hypothesis but as an empirically established fact." J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen stated in "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" that,

"The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (ie-black-white differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (ie-black-white outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics)."

The American Psychological Association’s Task Force, investigating the claims of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve noted that, at least among the white population, the heritability of IQ is approximately .75. A meta-study in 2016 reviewing over 200 studies placed heritability of IQ between .5 and .7 for all races, a strong positive correlation. Some recent estimates range as high as .8 to .86. Further, addressing notions of potential test biases, the APA Task Force concluded that, "Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African-Americans." Returning to Rushton and Jensen:

Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between blacks and whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)…and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings and in the military. Because test scores are the best predictor of economic success in Western society (note: my emphasis; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon, 1997; Gottfredson, 1997).

What are some of these outcomes? A recent study in the United States found that blacks from the top 1% of household income are statistically as likely to commit crime as whites from an average household income of $36,000. So much for the poverty-drives-crime narrative. Arthur Jensen in his 1998 book The g Factor, cited data which showed that, regardless of race, people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90. A pair of exceptions appear to be the Somali and Angolan population of immigrants and asylum-seekers in the West, whose crime rates are extraordinarily high; their averages IQ are 67 and 68, respectively. On an international level, according to Helmuth Nyborg,

"Modern Finnish research shows that countries with an IQ averaging less than 90 fail to create or maintain democracy. This explains why any attempt to bring democracy to countries with low IQ are doomed to failure. We can learn from Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen found that there was a correlation of 0.733 between GDP and national IQ over the eighty-one nations they measured.

In Arthur Jensen’s "Race Differences, g, and the ‘Default Hypothesis’: Reply to Locurto on Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor," Jensen reiterates g’s "practical predictive validity in education, employment and other real-world outcomes." Jensen continues:

In studying representative samples of black and white populations, I find no unique differences; that is, there appear to be no differences BETWEEN the groups in the external environmental and achievement correlates of g that do not hold for individual differences WITHIN each population when the level of g is taken into account. In recent years this generalization no longer holds for certain outcome variables that are were targeted by the institution of Affirmative Action, such as selection in higher education and employment and promotion in higher-level occupations (note: my emphasis).

I noted in my previous piece that Tay-Sachs and sickle cell were not social constructs, not to pithily take a shot at Jews and blacks, respectively, but to underscore the point that if different population groups have different predispositions to certain diseases, in many cases as by-products of specific environmental pressures, why would we expect that other outcomes be any different? We readily accept that the NBA is around three-quarters black, and has had exactly one player in its history from the high-population Indian subcontinent, but we seem unwilling or unable to process that Northeast Asians and Ashkenazim set the global pace in IQ. Most world-class sprinters are black, most of the world’s strongest men are white, especially of Northern European stock.

Does this physical development have anything to do with natural predators (or a relative lack thereof) coupled with climatic factors? The average European has about 2% Neanderthal DNA as opposed to naught-point-naught for Africans, which helps explain different immune systems, per the Pasteur Institute. Additionally, Neanderthals’ expanded cranial capacity and genetic legacy in Europeans and Northeast Asians does much to explain the average higher IQs of these groups compared to their counterparts from warmer climes, as well as of course the selection for low time preference individuals and, in the case of Europeans, cooperation. Northeast Asians have also been found to have trace amounts of Denisovan DNA, peaking with Pacific Islanders who have as many as a few percentage points. The significance of this presence is currently unknown.

Far from being a "social construct," there is a very clearly defined biological definition for "whiteness." From around 37,000 years ago, all ancient Europeans began to share some ancestry with modern Europeans, represented currently by GoyetQ116-1, a 35,000 year old specimen discovered in Belgium, and other discoveries in Luxembourg and Spain. From the original settler population 37,000 years ago, there has been an unbroken chain from those ancient Europeans to the modern ones, as modern Europeans all share a common ancestry with those ancient Europeans. For Bauchet, McEvoy, et al.:

There is low apparent diversity in Europe, with the entire continentwide sample only marginally more dispersed than single-population samples from elsewhere in the world. The Spanish and Basque groups are the farthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestion that the Iberian Peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry.

Genetically, Europeans are not distributed into discrete populations, which means that though there is ethnic variation, European whites are a uniform race that is clearly delineated and separate from others, a far cry from "not existing." Apart from outlier groups like the Sami, Europeans are characterized by the predominance of haplogroups H, U and T. Per the University of Oulu in Finland:

Classical polymorphic markers (i.e. blood groups, protein electromorphs and HLA antigenes) have suggested that Europe is a genetically homogeneous continent with a few outliers such as the Saami, Sardinians, Icelanders and Basques (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, Piazza 1993). The analysis of mtDNA sequences has also shown a high degree of homogeneity among European populations, and the genetic distances have been found to be much smaller than between populations on other continents, especially Africa (Comas et al. 1997). The mtDNA haplogroups of Europeans are surveyed by using a combination of data from RFLP analysis of the coding region and sequencing of the hypervariable segment I. About 99% of European mtDNAs fall into one of ten haplogroups: H, I, J, K, M, T, U, V, W or X (Torroni et al. 1996a). Each of these is defined by certain relatively ancient and stable polymorphic sites located in the coding region (Torroni et al. 1996a)... Haplogroup H, which is defined by the absence of an AluI site at bp 7025, is the most prevalent, comprising half of all Europeans (Torroni et al. 1996a, Richards et al. 1998)... Six of the European haplogroups (H, I, J, K, T and W) are essentially confined to European populations (Torroni et al. 1994, 1996a), and probably originated after the ancestral Caucasoids became genetically separated from the ancestors of the modern Africans and Asians.

Martin Richards estimated that only 11% of European mtDNA is due to migration from outside the continent during the Neolithic period, beginning in 10,000 BC. This evidence is born out in Britain where archaeologist Simon James states, "The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model," as 80% of Britons’ genes come from the population group who migrated from the continental mainland 12,000 years ago. Ireland’s founding population’s DNA has only received 12% genetic admixture from the past 6,500 years of immigration, and one estimate pins their core population as having 88% of their genes related to Hibernia’s founding group, which arrived there 9,000 years ago.

So races are distinct and the biological component is absolutely central to their existence—including the civilizations these races do (or do not) build. Given the cognitive intensity of the modern world and the amelioration of deprivation, at least in the West, leading to an exacerbation of cognitive disparities, it is little wonder the screams of racism grow louder as the "achievement gap" grows wider. Regarding why, exactly, someone would be compelled to study cognitive differences between the races, Jensen writes:

There are a number of medical books and articles (cited in Jensen, 1998) on race differences in disease rates, dosage responses, racial genetic factors in blood pressure, and the like. Are these investigations also racially tinged? The study of genetic variation in human populations is not racism, whether applied to physical or behavioral variables.


If, for example, the heritability of height in modern industrial populations is 90%, which means that 90% of height differences can be attributed to genetic inheritance; modernity’s affluence eliminates many of the nutritive and other environmental factors of deprivation that can stunt growth and, by extension as the brain is of course affected in a similar fashion, the controlling for environment, for Rushton and Jensen, "Produces the counterintuitive result of increasing heritability because any individual differences that remain must be due to genetic differences." In pre-sharia Sweden, for example, we noticed the pronounced sex differences in chosen professions as something very similar had occurred—with virtually all artificial impediments to employment removed, men’s and women’s biological predispositions were maximized, and there were huge disparities in STEM on the one hand and nursing, primary education, and pediatrics on the other. In other words, left to choose their own path free from environmental considerations (or as free as possible), men and women naturally chose different careers. This is something humans have understood for millennia, but which modern feminism and critical theory have "rendered strange." Returning to Jensen:

The progressive scientific theory is evaluated by its predictable implications and whether they are borne out in a variety of contexts. A degenerating theory finally collapses from the burden of the increasing body of inconsistent ad hoc speculations needed to explain away its predictive failures. I believe it more likely than not that the strictly environmentalist and nonbiological theories of individual and group differences in g will eventually meet the fate of a degenerating theory, and future historians will note the social and political ideologies prevailing in the twentieth century that made it take so long.

No less an authority than W.E.B. DuBois discussed the black community’s "talented tenth," acknowledging that the upper echelon would need to lead the general body. It is interestingly very similar to Lothrop Stoddard’s discussion of A and B intelligences based on US Army aptitude tests, where about 13.5% of Americans constituted the top two categories of intelligence, with the bulk at C-level. The governor of Minnesota famously said that the state didn’t need any more "B-plus" citizens, so evidently the decision has been made to replace the largely-Scandic stock of the state (average IQ: 100) with the “F” citizens of Somalia (average IQ: 67).


From Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life Perspective, Table 1.1 ("Relative Ranking of Races on Diverse Variables"), blacks, whites, and East Asians (Pacific Rim countries) are compared and contrasted by worldwide average using a number of different traits. Beginning with IQ, we learn the following: blacks have average IQs of 85, whites 100, and East Asians 106; blacks have slower decision times, whites intermediate, East Asians faster; by cultural achievement, blacks score low and whites and East Asians score high. In centimeters cubed, blacks have a cranial capacity of 1,267; whites 1,347; and East Asians 1,364. Finally, measured in millions, blacks have 13,185 cortical neurons; whites 13,665; East Asians 13,767. Blacks have the shortest gestation time, earliest ages of intercourse and pregnancy, and the shortest life span, with East Asians at the other end of the spectrum and whites in the middle (with the one exception being that whites and East Asians are marked at equivalent gestation time). Blacks hit puberty first, followed by whites, followed by East Asians. That said, for Rushton and Jensen;

"The size of the average black-white difference [in cognitive ability] does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of age and beyond (supported by Jensen 1974, 1998b)."

Average IQ differences between individuals and groups, including mean racial-group differences, show up before age 5, and they last a lifetime (Jensen, 1998).

Blacks score at the low end in cautiousness, marital stability, law abidingness, and mental health (with East Asians at the other end of the spectrum and whites in the middle), and they score at the high end in aggressiveness, hormone levels, intercourse frequency, permissive attitudes, sexually-transmitted diseases, impulsivity, sociability, and self-concept (self-esteem)—with East Asians once again at the other end of the spectrum and whites in the middle. Blacks also have the largest "sex characteristics."

Racial differences in IQ, just like bone density, height, skin color, muscle fiber distribution, disease susceptibility, and any other biological factor, is highly heritable, and is accepted science. Ultimately, as J. Philippe Rushton and Elizabeth Rushton conclude:

Despite 150 years of evidence that the races differ in brain size, and that brain size is related to intelligence, this research is often claimed to be inconclusive or to reflect little more than personal bias (Brody, in press; Gould, 1996; Graves, 2002; Kamin & Omari, 1998; Lieberman, 2001). The change in view from Darwin’s time to today did not occur because of more and better data or methods of analysis, but because of changes in the political climate. This began when Franz Boas (1938) and his students chipped away at traditional "hierarchical" thinking throughout the 1920s and 1930s, rejecting an evolutionary explanation of IQ and instead championing the omnipotence of culture. Subsequent political events such as World War II and the reactions to the Holocaust, the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, and the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Third World during the Cold War, resulted in a success for Boas’ mission to decouple biology from culture (Degler, 1991; Miele, 2001).

Re-coupling the two is absolutely essential certainly in pursuit of truth for its own sake, but also in terms of combating the pernicious anti-white dogma sweeping the globe and its twisted accusations of "racism." Though I would never deny historical injustices, they are not unique to the white race, and indeed on balance white Western civilization has contributed more to the global advancement of humanity than any other. Finally, in a contemporary context, with the environmental factors of Western colonialism and disenfranchisement policies long-dismantled, the disparity in achievement is very clearly suggestive of one overwhelmingly predominant factor: biological differences between the races, particularly in terms of intelligence.

John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

John Q. Publius writes for Republic Standard and runs the blog The Anatomically Correct Banana.